-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I would also add that future IPv6 capable devices should allow end users to
reach the IPv6 Internet
from an IPv4-only provider through some means, perhaps tunneling, with no or
minimal administrator
intervention. I can see many providers remaining IPv4-only long into the future.
On 11-06-30 5:57 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
> I think the consensus we had in the past BoFs and discussion in and around
> this topic can be summed up as stating that homenet deliverables will:
>
> - coexist with (existing) IPv4 protocols, devices, applications, etc.
> - operate in a (future) IPv6-only home network in the absence of IPv4
> - be IP-agnostic whenever possible
>
> In other words, anything we do for the IPv6 homenet cannot actively break
> what's already running on IPv4. Also, trying to define what the IPv4 home
> network should be has long reached a point of diminishing returns given the
> effort in doing so coupled with our ability to significantly affect what's
> already deployed. There's still hope we can help direct IPv6, as such that is
> homenet's primary focus. However, when we can define something that is
> needed for IPv6 in a way that is also useful for IPv4 without making
> significant concessions, we should go ahead and do so.
>
> - Mark
- --
Kenneth Voort - kenneth {at} voort <SPAMGUARD> {dot} ca
FDF1 6265 EBAB C05C FD06 1AED 158E 14D6 37CD E87F | pgp encrypted email
preferred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEARECAAYFAk4OKCsACgkQFY4U1jfN6H8gawCgkTQmlcodjih+Pawf8YTLZYiI
7M4AoI2Bm7F+uBc2lmoo+IdHEpeklcf6
=Hv52
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
